In the mean time, for both you and Seeker (Seeker because he has a TRUCKLOAD of docks, sub-docks, etc..., you because you run into that sub-dock disappearing problem in the first private betas):

I've been combing through the code and in the new Shelf duplicating, deleting, etc, options I forgot about the in-Shelf subdocks. Likewise when deleting Regular tabs in the Shelf, even before v18.8.

As a result of this, as well as what was happening to Ric, you can end up having orphaned sub-docks 'stuck' in the internal structure with no way to access or delete them. Cross referencing (e.g.; for instance, having two or more docks or Shelf tabs referencing the *same* sub-dock) is also a *potential* problem.

Now, orphaned sub-docks do not pose an issue other than them and their former contents occupying space in memory, of course, but it is still a wasteful use of resources.

So, I'm working on adding some kind of 'Check Internal Integrity' feature which will look into these issues and automatically resolve them if necessary. It fact, it will work a lot like CHKDSK does for hard disks - it will report on inconsistencies and offer to fix them for you if it finds any.

Still, I would like you guys to test this feature out and report on what it finds (that's the part I am REALLY curious about), so expect another private beta soon. Or maybe another public beta, even.

I'm thinking about adding this feature to the 'TroubleShooting Options' dialog - I think it's a good place for it, especially because the recommendation to perform a backup before using the feature is already there.

Great idea Jorge, all in favour of that 'Chk Int Integrity' feature, and all in favour of giving it a good run for its money. There certainly is a lorry-load of lost subdocks waiting for it.

However, since the public (or even the last private?) beta, haven't lost any more subdocks. Will try harder again when I get a chance.

I think I may have uncovered another little problem. Before the public beta had no problems attaching a subdock to an existing app. But now, no can do, at all! The arrow appears ok, but then the existing app is replaced instead of the new item starting a subdock.

I think I may have uncovered another little problem. Before the public beta had no problems attaching a subdock to an existing app. But now, no can do, at all! The arrow appears ok, but then the existing app is replaced instead of the new item starting a subdock.

I think I may have uncovered another little problem. Before the public beta had no problems attaching a subdock to an existing app. But now, no can do, at all! The arrow appears ok, but then the existing app is replaced instead of the new item starting a subdock.

Can anyone else confirm?

no issues here

Hmm, since Jorge says you have truckloads of docks and sub-docks, that means it must be something on my system or perhaps something I now do wrong. :/ Have tried in vrious themes, tried varying angles of approach but all with the same result. Will just have to keep trying I guess.

I think I may have uncovered another little problem. Before the public beta had no problems attaching a subdock to an existing app. But now, no can do, at all! The arrow appears ok, but then the existing app is replaced instead of the new item starting a subdock.

Can anyone else confirm?

no issues here

Hmm, since Jorge says you have truckloads of docks and sub-docks, that means it must be something on my system or perhaps something I now do wrong. :/ Have tried in vrious themes, tried varying angles of approach but all with the same result. Will just have to keep trying I guess.

earlier i tested it on docks, now it occured to me to test it on the shelf and i cant attach a sub dock to an exiting shortcut on the shelf, nothing happens and subdock is inserted as a new icon, but my shortcuts dont get replaced

I think I may have uncovered another little problem. Before the public beta had no problems attaching a subdock to an existing app. But now, no can do, at all! The arrow appears ok, but then the existing app is replaced instead of the new item starting a subdock.

Can anyone else confirm?

no issues here

nexter wrote:

Hmm, since Jorge says you have truckloads of docks and sub-docks, that means it must be something on my system or perhaps something I now do wrong. :/ Have tried in vrious themes, tried varying angles of approach but all with the same result. Will just have to keep trying I guess.

earlier i tested it on docks, now it occured to me to test it on the shelf and i cant attach a sub dock to an exiting shortcut on the shelf, nothing happens and subdock is inserted as a new icon, but my shortcuts dont get replaced

Ok, just to make it clear to anyone reading this, this is something that would only happen if 'Allow attaching sub-docks to existing application shortcuts' is enabled.

HOWEVER, Seeker, this option ONLY affects docks, it has no effect on the Shelf: in the Shelf sub-docks still require their own dedicated items in the tab.

The option was added only to keep backwards compatibility, back when docks did not magnify yet. This meant that the sub-dock 'parent' icon also remained a useful and valid launch item, because without the magnify effect it was easy to click on the small sub-dock indicator arrow in the icon to open an associated sub-dock. With magnifying docks, however, you're basically forced to chase it around, which is not practical at all.

To keep backwards compatibility I couldn't just remove the ability to add sub-docks to already existing items, so instead I added that option and set it to disabled by default.

So, although the option is strictly there as a way to maintain backwards compatibility, it can still be used like before if you don't use magnifying docks, which Ric doesn't.

Now, Ric, I could not reproduce what you mentioned, at least not on a vertical dock and to create a NEW sub-dock. I see the little arrow bouncing around (which tells me anything I drop then will be added to the sub-dock) and when I drop the item the new sub-dock is created and the item added to it. So try to figure out if some other setting (dock being locked, etc) or dock orientation is affecting this - you still see the furiously bouncing arrow, don't you?

Anyway, while testing this I did come across another issue: wow to you if you decide to associate a sub-dock to a *module* item on the dock - you will NOT be able to delete the sub-dock in such a case because there will be no right click context menu options for it (but this only affects module context menus).

I think I may have uncovered another little problem. Before the public beta had no problems attaching a subdock to an existing app. But now, no can do, at all! The arrow appears ok, but then the existing app is replaced instead of the new item starting a subdock.

Can anyone else confirm?

no issues here

nexter wrote:

Hmm, since Jorge says you have truckloads of docks and sub-docks, that means it must be something on my system or perhaps something I now do wrong. :/ Have tried in vrious themes, tried varying angles of approach but all with the same result. Will just have to keep trying I guess.

earlier i tested it on docks, now it occured to me to test it on the shelf and i cant attach a sub dock to an exiting shortcut on the shelf, nothing happens and subdock is inserted as a new icon, but my shortcuts dont get replaced

Ok, just to make it clear to anyone reading this, this is something that would only happen if 'Allow attaching sub-docks to existing application shortcuts' is enabled.

HOWEVER, Seeker, this option ONLY affects docks, it has no effect on the Shelf: in the Shelf sub-docks still require their own dedicated items in the tab.

The option was added only to keep backwards compatibility, back when docks did not magnify yet. This meant that the sub-dock 'parent' icon also remained a useful and valid launch item, because without the magnify effect it was easy to click on the small sub-dock indicator arrow in the icon to open an associated sub-dock. With magnifying docks, however, you're basically forced to chase it around, which is not practical at all.

To keep backwards compatibility I couldn't just remove the ability to add sub-docks to already existing items, so instead I added that option and set it to disabled by default.

So, although the option is strictly there as a way to maintain backwards compatibility, it can still be used like before if you don't use magnifying docks, which Ric doesn't.

Now, Ric, I could not reproduce what you mentioned, at least not on a vertical dock and to create a NEW sub-dock. I see the little arrow bouncing around (which tells me anything I drop then will be added to the sub-dock) and when I drop the item the new sub-dock is created and the item added to it. So try to figure out if some other setting (dock being locked, etc) or dock orientation is affecting this - you still see the furiously bouncing arrow, don't you?

Anyway, while testing this I did come across another issue: wow to you if you decide to associate a sub-dock to a *module* item on the dock - you will NOT be able to delete the sub-dock in such a case because there will be no right click context menu options for it (but this only affects module context menus).

I already fixed this oversight, of course.

It seems to be functioning completely as intended again Jorge. But when it did happen earlier yesterday, yes, the arrow still kept flashing quite furiously.

Funny old thing really. Maybe something in Windows, which had just finished updating again, interfered? Who knows what's going on there. :/

Oh, and the reason I was furiously trying to add more subdocks was that I was going to test something.

Oh and can I add, I H A T E dock magnification, it's really irritating. Damn The Dark Side for dreaming that up! Damn them to hell anyway, where they came from in the first place.

[But when it did happen earlier yesterday, yes, the arrow still kept flashing quite furiously.

You mean bouncing, right?

Indeed!

winstep wrote:

nexter wrote:

Oh and can I add, I H A T E dock magnification, it's really irritating. Damn The Dark Side for dreaming that up! Damn them to hell anyway, where they came from in the first place.

Eye candy sells - and Steve Jobs knew that VERY WELL.

Yeah, and damn the barsteward! It no doubt makes for great eye candy, but from a productivity POV it's a PITA. (Although probably fine if you like using tiny icons that actually *need* magnification, but even then single icon (i.e. the icon being moused over) magnification would be more useful IMO.)

Sigh. If you've already set up multiple Shelves, DO NOT INSERT A TAB from the Shelf itself (i.e.; right click on a tab -> Insert Tab). Doing so may corrupt the most recent Shelf and result in lost or shifted content.

You can ADD a tab (which adds a new tab to the end of the Shelf) and then drag it into the new position. That works perfectly fine.

Sorry about this, thousands and thousands of lines of code were changed to add support for multiple shelves - bugs were bound to creep in into what was previously rock solid code. That's exactly the reason why we have betas.

Sigh. If you've already set up multiple Shelves, DO NOT INSERT A TAB from the Shelf itself (i.e.; right click on a tab -> Insert Tab). Doing so may corrupt the most recent Shelf and result in lost or shifted content.

You can ADD a tab (which adds a new tab to the end of the Shelf) and then drag it into the new position. That works perfectly fine.

Sorry about this, thousands and thousands of lines of code were changed to add support for multiple shelves - bugs were bound to creep in into what was previously rock solid code. That's exactly the reason why we have betas.

Exactly! Don't go beating yourself up over it Jorge, it's no big deal.

Exactly! Don't go beating yourself up over it Jorge, it's no big deal.

Anything that involves potential loss of data is a big deal.

Anyway, probably time for a new public beta lol

Ah but it's not real, serious, data that are/could be lost, just links or at worst a whole new shelf. Need I say, 'backup, backup. backup!' - after all, we've got that wonderful little applet, 'Backup Workshelf Settings'. And besides, even without a recent backup. how long does it take to re-create a recently new shelf?

We all know - or should know - that these are risks we take in running a beta Jorge, even a public one. Personally, I've always been prepared for the worst - even complete system loss - in beta (and alpha) testing here and elsewhere for more than twenty years, and have always been pleasantly surprised that only very occasionally (and never, AFAIR, here, not even in the earliest days) some minor things went awry.

Even losing a whole shelf, assuming that I didn't have a backup, is not something I myself would consider anything more than a very minor thing. And I'm sure you mentioned already having fixed that for the next beta.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum